<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2005Feb/att-0011/Agenda15Feb2005_1.htm
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to contact Eric Miller about WSCG
Minutes are at: http://www.w3.org/2005/01/04-ws-cg-minutes.html
Minutes are approved
MarkN: Addressing intend to go to
LC at or right after the TP
... we will have a F2F in April, and a joint F2F early June
Mike: we are working on SOAP 1.2 2nd ed, and we're targetting to be done next week
<MSM> QT expect a last call in April
<MSM> QT = XQuery 1.0, XSLT 2.0, and their related specs.
Hugo: Description is going to do another LC, but we have quite a few issues open still
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to prepare minutes
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] CG to ping Addison about progress and rechartering
Steve: I will forward Addison's email after the call
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to add some additional dates to calendar
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Mark to go back and provide a clear concise description of the requirement so that the Description WG can provide guidance as to how to meet the requirements.
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] SRT to check with Hugo on above item
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo has some action item concerning this [XML CG Data Types Issue] which may need to be recast in coord group.
Hugo: actually, it wasn't to the XML CG in particular, but I sent email to the description about the meeting we had
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jan/0029.html
<SRT> Glossary:
<SRT> Came up in discussion with GGF, Oasis and DMTF and they were talking about doing a glossary.
<SRT> It turns out we already have one which is a good starting point based on Web Services Architecture WG.
<SRT> Hugo suggests that we (the CG) should redraft the glossary with updated terms. Given that HH was the editor the workload is not too high.
Mark: I'm worried about reopening
architecture discussions
... we tried this in WS-I and it didn't go well
Martin: what if Groups didn't agree?
Hugo: at least those differences would be listed
Martin: also, I think that would need resources in the Chor WG
Hugo: I think that some definitions in the glossary could be simply updated based on the current WS-CDL draft
Steve: I think that it would help; there is some confusion in the market place
Mark: is it confusion over the terms or the architecture?
Martin and Mark think that it will not work
Steve: I think it should be done
<SRT> Is this a scoping problem
<SRT> I'd happily help in scoping and then take it from there
Martin: updating the glossary is not a bad thing, but adding more terms is not going to work
<SRT> Steve volunteers to work with Hugo
Hugo: what if I update the document and bring it back to the CG for review?
CG agrees
Mike: I think that we had problems getting to consensus in the Architecture WG
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review
- Choreography
Martin: we have about 60
technical LC issues
... thank you to WGs for providing comments
- Description
Hugo: dealing with LC
issues
... may have dealt with one of our formal objections
... making progress
- XMLP
Mike: David resigned
... we published the XOP+MTOM+RRSHB Recs
... we're working on SOAP 1.2 2n Ed
... and then we'll be working on MTOM errata
... we'll be discussing if we want to do any other kind of work
besides maintenance
Steve: I was at a conference and
heard the usual "SOAP's too slow"
... has there been any benchmarking done and publicly
available?
Mike: I'll have to get back to you on this
- Addressing
Mark: we're on our way to
LC
... right now, there's a lot of focus around the tag issue
about identity, and we have a TF with the Desc WG about
asynchrony
... it looks like we're going to need a new SOAP MEP + binding
for one-way communication
... this isn't on our critical path to LC, but it is for
CR
... this work could be done in Addressing, Desc, or XMLP
... when is XMLP meeting at the TP?
Mike: we're not
Mark: maybe you should come and attend our meeting
Mike: I could try to come to your Tuesday session
Mark: we already have a strawman proposal from David Orchard
- XML CG
Michael: nothing much to
report
... the only substantive topic we are discussing the adoption
of XML 1.1
... some of those are disapointed about WSDL 2.0 dropping XML
1.1 support
... you may expect a comment at your next LC about reinstating
XML 1.1 support as you had it right
Steve: what was it that was compelling about XML 1.1 that WSDL 2.0 should have used?
Michael: what they are missing is
the possibility of using any XML version
... they had very careful rules about the invariance between
XML versions
... they are also losing the advantages of XML 1.1
Hugo: people felt that the added layer of abstraction was too complex in the spec
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to send email about XML 1.1 support and then dropping in WSDL 2.0
- SWS IG
<MSM> The summaries Hugo and I prepared of the discussion of WSDL's 1.1 support are available at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005Feb/0001.html
Carine: there is now some hope to get a review of WS-CDL by the CG
<MSM> That does not cover the advantages or disadvantages of XML 1.1.
<SRT> 14 Feb: W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability (Call for Participation)
<SRT> and 10 Feb: W3C Workshop on Frameworks for Semantics in Web Services (Call for Participation)
Carine: also, we announced a workshop on Frameworks for Semantics in Web Services
Steve: those workshops are
related, but are not colocated
... the problem is that I don't have budget for going to both
of those
... I think we ought to do better coordination
Carine: that was our original plan, but we had to decouple
Steve: I may write an email to express my disapointment more formally
Steve: I would like to propose to
invite Chris Swan of CSFB to better understand what
technologies they're using
... I'd like to hear back from you at the TP
Martin: also, I thought we could have been consulted about the note to WS-I about schema profiling
Michael: the problem is that we
were aware of this on the day the board was balloting
this
... BTW, if you have issues with schemas in your WGs, the
Schema WG would like to hear from you for its 1.1 spec
Steve: I would like to have a
date for meeting either for lunch or dinner
... we'll meet Wednesday 2 for lunch
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to book table for lunch on Wednesday 2
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/02/15-ws-cg-minutes hugo
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/02/15-ws-cg-minutes hugo